bibles

[Mr. SmartyPants]

I usually just stick with the NIV.

[Nanao]

Wow lot of NIV! I primarily read The Message at the moment >_> But, I am looking into the possibility of changing to a different one. I use NASB for scripture memory or word studies. I'm not the most experienced Christian out there, so I really like how the Message makes things easy to relate to, but sometimes I feel like it trivialises things a bit.

[Peanut]

NKJV, NIV and ESV are the main ones I use.

[ChristianKitsune]

Isn't there Bible translation that is like really controversial because it like doesn't specifically state that God is male? I might be mistaken, but I thought I heard that somewhere.

[Rusty Claymore]

@CK: As far as I know there are a few. One that I know of was nicknamed the "Stealth Bible" because it remained labled as the original version it was taken off from. I don't remember which version it was though.

[shooraijin]

Let's not get into those, unless we want to move this thread to Theology Discussions. (Hint.)

[Warrior 4 Jesus]

Shao, I think you're just used to the KJV, it reads very, very differently to modern English. It's archaic but if you enjoy that version more power to you (just don't expect everyone to enjoy or be able to understand it).

[ADXC]

Agreeing with W4J, just know that with the KJV sometimes you'll run across words or phrases that may possibly be archaic that may not mean what you think it means.


If one does his studying about particular words or phrases that he is not certain about, then I have no qualms about one using it.


Of course I like to read out of the KJV, but sometimes the meaning may not be the same because it was written for people in the 1600s. However, I do believe the word of God does transcend time so using the KJV is alright. You just have to be careful with interpretation and application.



This is the way I learned to read the Bible in my IBL(Interpreting Biblical Literature) class that I took last semester and these things have helped me a lot.
It's called the Interpretive Journey.

Step 1: Grasping the text in their town. What did the text mean to the biblical audience?

Step 2: Measuring the width of the river to cross. What are the differences between the biblical audience and us?
These comprise of culture, language, time, situation, and covenant (Pay special attention when you go from the OT to the NT here.)

Step 3: Crossing the principlizing bridge. What is the theological principle in this text?

Step 4: Grasp the text in their town. How should individual Christians today apply the theological principle in their lives?


Anyway, I thought it would be neat to share this. You don't have to follow this format, but I think it is pretty good.

[J.D3]

I currently use a NIV Archaeological Study Bible (and before you ask, no, I'm not an archeologist!), but carry around a small Gideon's NJKV for general reference or reading, coz I'm usually running around a lot with study & whatnot.

My thoughts on KJV's echo that of Atria35 & Midori - good read & for a general reference (at least I've found anyway) but I probably prefer more modern translations with footnotes explaining things, like my NIV, which I've found really helpful in understanding things.
Nothing against the King James though. As I've discovered with mine, God's Word can reach you no matter what form it's in!

I have also pondered about maybe eventually getting a translation that's more of a very accurate reflection of the original Greek, Hebrew & Aramaic texts into English, hopefully with footnotes as well.

Hmm, does such a thing exist? I'm pretty sure it does but not sure what...

[TheMewster]

Read NIV and it was AWESOME! so I'll stick with that one from now on since I'm rereading the Gospels. God bless the translators! Oh, and you guys too!

[Xeno]

When I do any serious reading or go to church I take either my NKJV Thompson Chain Reference or I use a Bible app on my iPhone. When I need a good laugh I read the Message translation, because a lot of it is just plain ridiculous.

[Warrior 4 Jesus]

Really? How is The Message ridiculous? Granted it's meant to be easy to understand but as an Australian some of the terminology confuses me more than anything. And here "member" doesn't refer to one's foot.

[Dante]

I have a KJV Bible and a TNIV Bible, along with e-sword (with both of those) for further reference. The one time I read the Bible cover to cover, I used the KJ version, so I would often get wierded out in sermons when they used other translations - especially if I remembered the verses differently XD. I've become less conservative with each passing year though and so I prefer the TNIV today however.

[ADXC]

You guys lets not bash any version of the Bible. There really doesn't need to be a debate about this here.

[Xeno]

Really? How is The Message ridiculous? Granted it's meant to be easy to understand but as an Australian some of the terminology confuses me more than anything. And here "member" doesn't refer to one's foot.

Well, let me rephrase as I probably didn't chose my words properly. I find a lot of the the Message translation to be funny due to things like how it translates Psalm 23, especially verse 4
"Even when the way goes through
Death Valley,
I’m not afraid
when you walk at my side.
Your trusty shepherd’s crook
makes me feel secure."

Death Valley is a real place in California where a great deal of the original Star Wars trilogy was filmed at. So it's not ridiculous, but I find it humorous.
Sorry if I upset anyone by calling it that. As long as the translation is done as correctly as possible with the intent of keeping the same message, then a translation can't be ridiculous.

[Agloval]

As a child I read the GNB, and nowadays I use the NIV for everyday stuff. I also have a AV/KJV (curiously enough, an edition with atheist editors), and a few other versions. All of which I have to refer to now and again (for literary rather than theological study) but none of which I turn to when I just want to read the Bible.

[ich1990]

There is a trade-off between accuracy and readability. Depending on how much of either I am interested in, I use The Message, the NASB, or the Greek and Hebrew.

Of course sometimes I just use whatever happens to be closest to me at the moment.

[Nanao]

Of course sometimes I just use whatever happens to be closest to me at the moment.

That's my philosophy most of the time. Which usually translates to whatever is available online.

[rocklobster]

I use the NRSV Catholic Edition. We also have a Jerusalem Bible with a nice black cover.

[Shao Feng-Li]

Well, let me rephrase as I probably didn't chose my words properly. I find a lot of the the Message translation to be funny due to things like how it translates Psalm 23, especially verse 4
"Even when the way goes through
Death Valley,
I’m not afraid
when you walk at my side.
Your trusty shepherd’s crook
makes me feel secure."

Death Valley is a real place in California where a great deal of the original Star Wars trilogy was filmed at. So it's not ridiculous, but I find it humorous.
Sorry if I upset anyone by calling it that. As long as the translation is done as correctly as possible with the intent of keeping the same message, then a translation can't be ridiculous.

Some of The Message makes me think "So, if Stephanie Meyer wrote a Bible..."

[Mr. SmartyPants]

There is a trade-off between accuracy and readability.

While this is true, I think that there will never be a translation which captures the pure essence of the Bible. We only have what we can work with.

[uc pseudonym]

So I realize I might pull this thread closer to the obvious debate, but I would prefer that honest questions not go unanswered:

Atria or Midori, could you link me articles on these older texts, please?

I can link you articles if you want, but PM me, since most of them are in the context of a debate. Of course, for an issue such as this it would probably be better to reference books - I'll limit my recommendation of those to The Text of the New Testament by Bruce Metzger, which is a good resource for those who want to know how the English translations of the Bible came to be (much less want to argue about them). I'm not a professional, but most of what I'm saying here is old facts.

But to be more useful, let me sketch out the core differences in texts available between when the KJV was translated and now. First, some information on the resources used by the KJV:
- The Greek used for the KJV was translated by Erasmus. He followed the scholarly conventions of his time in choice of manuscripts, which is different from what we know now about which texts are most reliable (this is the Byzantine vs Alexandrian debate if you want to know more).
- In the words of the translator himself, this text was "rushed into print rather than edited." There are dozens of papers on the typographical and minor errors due to this.
- Erasmus had no Greek manuscript for the last six verses of Revelation (I think other areas but my memory is fuzzy). So he translated from the Latin, back into Greek, then into English.
- In later editions Erasmus used various sources such as the Montfortianus codex which we now know to be even younger than the first edition.

Though Erasmus assembled the texts he had available as best he could, his Greek NT was the sole source used by the KJV translators. Meanwhile, as time has passed the following discoveries improved biblical translation:
- The Aleph codex was discovered in 1859.
- The Vaticanus codex wasn't available to translators until 1889.
- The Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in 1947. You should know about these.
- I can't remember when they showed up, but the Alexandrius and Sinaiticus codexes were also older texts not available for the KJV.

Just to be clear, I'm not trying to make any statements about what Bible you should read. Unless your KJV has a date like 1611 attached to it, most typographical errors and mistranslations have been corrected (with a few controversial exceptions). I also hope I won't turn a civil thread into an argument. However, I think it is important to bring up some basic facts since this discussion often seems to be based on opinions and the idea that God wrote the Bible in English.

[Forgotten]

KJV ♥ It's the least confusing for me, and it's what I've grown up using. My school uses it too, so it's just more simple. It would be terrible to memorize a verse, and quote it in the wrong version for the quiz...xD ( -always has a fear of that- ) I also like KJV because people gave their lives for it, and worked so hard to get it to us, and publish it. <3

I love cross-translating. ;3; I only know how to read a little bit of Greek from my Bible teacher, though. So I'm going to save up and buy a Greek to English dictionary and Bible~

[Nate]

people gave their lives for it

No one gave their life for the KJV. The reason it's called the King James Version is because King James I of England officially authorized a group of translators to create a new translation of the Bible, because the consensus at the time was that the previous English translations had problems.

So a new translation was ordered to be made to better conform to the Church of England's doctrine, as the Puritans didn't like the Great Bible or the Bishop's Bible (the previous English translations).

At any rate, the translators and printers of the King James Bible were working under direct orders from the king of England, it certainly wasn't any sort of secret operation that required any sort of sacrifice. In other words, nobody gave their life for it. Unless some of them died of natural causes while working on the translation, but that doesn't really count.

[Warrior 4 Jesus]

Exactly, Nate. People have given their lives for their belief in Jesus but not for the KJV translation, that's for sure.

[J.D3]

I think Forgotten means "gave their lives for it" as in, greatly invested their time, energy & talents into tranlsating it.

Like you guys have been indicating, it'd be pretty perverse if people were actually sacrificed for it, like some crazy ritual! I'd run for the hills if that was the case...

[Warrior 4 Jesus]

If that's what they meant, it still doesn't mean much more. Most, if not all translators invest years in researching and translating to create new translations.

[lyates]

The Scriptures, a relatively new translation published by the Institute for Scripture Research. My Kids all received this bible from our neighbor for Christmas one year. When I read versus in this bible the words come to life in my life and I feel I am receiving the true meaning of God's word.

[blkmage]

People have been martyred (read: gave/sacrificed their life) for translating the Bible into other languages (e.g. William Tyndale burned at the stake for trying to translate it into English). It's just that the guys translating the KJV aren't those guys.

[Mr. Hat'n'Clogs]

I thought I heard somewhere that the KJV used a lot of Tyndale's material.